There is no border-there is no province- just illegal tobacco sales

[Smallc]

I'm not going looking for a law that doesn't exist.

You're going to have to look for exemptions for other laws, since that's what's required here. I won't hold my breath.

[jacee]

You're going to have to look for exemptions for other laws, since that's what's required here. I won't hold my breath.

Municipal police, the OPP and Ministry of Revenue officers have the power, under the provincial Tobacco Tax Act, to charge non-natives who possess untaxed cigarettes, Harvey said.

The RCMP and Canadian border guards can charge people for smuggling or possessing contraband tobacco products under the Federal Excise Act.

Harvey said RCMP officers have the power to charge people for possessing contraband cigarettes -- not cigarettes legal for sale to natives -- at First Nations "smoke shacks," but are "targeting" cross-border smugglers.

"The RCMP, right now, is focusing on a higher level of organized crime," he said.

Harvey said the RCMP is "well aware" of the political sensitivity of enforcing the law on reserves.

It isn't an "exemption" from provincial law, but an Aboriginal right under Section 35 of the Constitution, of course.

Tax free status of native businesses was just confirmed by the Supreme Court:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/native-fisherys-tax-free-status-over-last-hurdle-175923631.html?device=mobile

A Supreme Court of Canada decision Thursday handed a group of Manitoba aboriginal fishers a tax victory that could allow First Nations across Canada to claim tax-free status for commercial ventures. Canada's highest court rejected an appeal request from the Canada Revenue Agency, forcing Ottawa to forgo taxes on the annual commercial fishing catch by Norway House fishers. "

...

Ottawa lost its appeal, and with the Supreme Court rejecting the federal request for a hearing, the door is now open to First Nations commercial ventures that also seek tax exemptions, the fishers' lawyer said. "If a First Nation has a corporation headquartered on a reserve and they bank on a reserve, work on or through a reserve or in proximity to a reserve, whatever goods they produce... are tax-free," Winnipeg lawyer Norm Boudreau said. "The tax court can no longer view a First Nation enterprise in the commercial stream as a way to tax that First Nation," Boudreau said.

I think that clarifies.

Edited October 28, 2012 by jacee

[Wild Bill]

...

Ottawa lost its appeal, and with the Supreme Court rejecting the federal request for a hearing, the door is now open to First Nations commercial ventures that also seek tax exemptions, the fishers' lawyer said. "If a First Nation has a corporation headquartered on a reserve and they bank on a reserve, work on or through a reserve or in proximity to a reserve, whatever goods they produce... are tax-free," Winnipeg lawyer Norm Boudreau said. "The tax court can no longer view a First Nation enterprise in the commercial stream as a way to tax that First Nation," Boudreau said.

I think that clarifies.

Well, this is something, at least! Finally!

It doesn't clarify everything, however. We have always known that native business are exempt from BEING taxed! That would include corporate tax, tax on machinery and supplies for their own use, and so on.

I would imagine that native employees of a business on a reserve would be exempt from income taxes and such.

What about CPP and EI premiums, I wonder?

Anyhow, there is a BIG difference between taxes levied on a business and SALES taxes on its product or service to non-natives! Smokes to non-natives would fall into that category.

The ONLY factor in your cite that to me supports your premise is the part about the fishing. If I understand it correctly, the Supreme Court is saying that the government cannot levy tax on fish caught by native fishing businesses when sold.

It doesn't say to a wholesaler in volume or retail "onesy-twosy" to retail customers a few pounds of fish at a time. The idea that if something isn't spelled out as ok in law means that it is indeed ok has been gone ever since Trudeau changed things. To paraphrase a popular model used at the time of his changes, the old British style system was one where a citizen had the right to do whatever unless there was a specific law against it. In effect, you can walk on any grass unless there is a "Keep off the grass" sign.

After Trudeau we have more of the French model. It's "Keep off ALL grass!" unless there is a sign saying it's ok to walk on it.

So perhaps the Supreme Court decision means something different when applied at th retail level. I don't know but I am sure that lawyers might have a field day and so the idea is yet to be tested.

At least you have given us something to chew on. That wasn't so hard, was it?

The issue is still not closed. The Supreme Court are lawyers after all. Their mandate is to find if something is legal or not by the present law of the land. Whether or not that means it would bankrupt the country or cause severe disruption is not within their purvue.

It is not only possible but likely that the fishing decision is going to cause a lot of problems. First, it could well put every non-native fisherman out of business. There are a number of them! It is guaranteed they will not sit by quietly and watch their kids starve. Poltiicians will have to become involved.

There is also the fact that native fishermen consider themselves exempt from any limits designed to prevent collapse of stocks or extinction of a fish species. They have been quite vocal about how conservation laws do NOT apply to natives! That may well be true but Nature doesn't care. If overfishing drives fish to extinction it doesn't matter who did the overfishing.

What happens then? That could even have international ramifications. Canada is not the only country fishing our coasts. Would Canada have to defend its natives in international court or would Japan or Russia be able to sue natives directly? If natives are indeed sovereign then one would expect they would have to fight their own battles.

Back to the cigarette issue! Legal or not, non-native variety stores are being driven out of business from loss of tobacco sales. The amount of tax money lost is staggering! Can governments AFFORD to give up that revenue? And how long before ordinary Canadians realize that every dollar of lost taxes due to native cigarette sales means another dollar added to THEIR tax burden? Will they just smile and tell their politicians "Fuggedaboutit!"?

Back when these Treaties were first written the world was a much simpler place. No one imagined that someday natives would become commercial level businessmen. No one understood the future problems and conflicts. Even if some did they no doubt assumed that politicians would work them out. Of course, our politicians today do nothing of the kind. They have a conflict between what is good for the country and how things APPEAR! Native rights are now considered politically correct by much of the population. Understandably so, since natives were often screwed by such politicians!

Still, as I said, just because it's legal can have nothing to do with whether or not a thing works.

Sooner or later these problems will have to be addressed. Every day of delay means they just grow bigger and bigger. Meanwhile, non-native unemployment keeps rising and business profits and therefore the taxes they contribute to the government for services like EI and medicare keep dropping. It's easy for a non-native to support native rights when he's flush! When he and his familiy get hungry their values can change very quickly, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.

So resentment against things like native fishing companies and taxes lost to contraband cigarettes will only grow. That's a pity, in my opinion. I don't believe that governments made a wise decision to boost sin taxes so high in the first place. Back in the 90's when this situation happened for the first time governments chose to drop their taxes by over half and the contraband industry collapsed overnight. For some reason they have not chosen to do the same today. Perhaps some politicians have been bought - who knows? Whatever, governments should never have allowed themselves to be so dependent on sin taxes to the point where losing tobacco taxes to natives can hurt so badly.

The whole situation is a mess. I suspect things will get much worse before they get better.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Wild Bill

[jacee]

From above:

... whatever goods they produce ... are tax free

I can't answer all of the many and voluminous issues you speculate about.

However, I do know that the job of the Supreme Court is to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions.

As for the tax money being lost due to native cig sales ... that's a hypocritical concern imo:

- Cigs are hidden from view - you can't browse what you want to buy.

- Taxes are through the roof!

- Packages are very offensive

- Try finding a place to sit down, be warm, free of harassment, and smoke in peace!

Point being ... the government makes smoking as difficult as possible and brags about reducing smoking (and sales).

They are hypocrites if they now complain about lost sales taxes.

Reduce the taxes ... sales will increase.

And btw ... natives have always had 'commercial level businesses'.

Thus the Supreme Court ruling.

Read the article WB.

Edited October 28, 2012 by jacee

[Wild Bill]

From above:

... whatever goods they produce ... are tax free

I can't answer all of the many and voluminous issues you speculate about.

However, I do know that the job of the Supreme Court is to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions.

As for the tax money being lost due to native cig sales ... that's a hypocritical concern imo:

- Cigs are hidden from view - you can't browse what you want to buy.

- Taxes are through the roof!

- Packages are very offensive

- Try finding a place to sit down, be warm, free of harassment, and smoke in peace!

Point being ... the government makes smoking as difficult as possible and brags about reducing smoking (and sales).

They are hypocrites if they now complain about lost sales taxes.

Reduce the taxes ... sales will increase.

And btw ... natives have always had 'commercial level businesses'.

Thus the Supreme Court ruling.

Read the article WB.

I did read the article. What was the level of commercial native business in 1712, not 2012?

I'm glad you agree with me that governments have made a mess of the situation. What else is new?

I do have another question, though. You said "it's the job of the Supreme Court is to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions."

Do you have anything to support this? I thought the job of the Supreme Court is to deal with law and it is the job of the politicians to MAKE that law! As I said in my post, something can be perfectly legal yet not work. Native businesses competing with mainstream business with the advantage of being tax-free may be legal. I don't see that it is the job of the legal system to care if it puts mainstream business into bankruptcy.

In short, courts are not the government. If you are saying differently, then I would be interested in how you support that claim.

[jacee]

The Supreme Court (Judicial branch of government) applies Constitutional rights to law made by Parliament (Legislative branch of government).

The ruling is what it is.

Edited October 28, 2012 by jacee

[Wild Bill]

The Supreme Court (Judicial branch of government) applies Constitutional rights to law made by Parliament (Legislative branch of government).

The ruling is what it is.

No argument there. It's just when you said "However, I do know that the job of the Supreme Court is to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions." I took that to mean you were saying the job of the Supreme Court was to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions.

[jacee]

No argument there. It's just when you said "However, I do know that the job of the Supreme Court is to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions." I took that to mean you were saying the job of the Supreme Court was to consider the balance of impacts of their decisions.

It's just something I recall reading several years ago, and

I think if you're interested in that you should research the case law on Aboriginal rights.

It is an interesting and evolving topic for those who have concerns about the issues.

[Wild Bill]

It's just something I recall reading several years ago, and

I think if you're interested in that you should research the case law on Aboriginal rights.

It is an interesting and evolving topic for those who have concerns about the issues.

I don't have to spend my time researching aboriginal rights. I don't care! What's more, I have always believed that aboriginals have been screwed by our governments. So has everyone else. What makes natives special?

The only complaint I have with natives is HOW Six Nations protested at Caledonia. Not WHY! They have many good points to explain their beefs. Rather, I thought they used tactics of thuggery that affected the townsfolk and not the federal and provincial governments who were not only those responsible but also the only ones who could address the SN concerrns.

Whacking old men with two-by-fours, road blockades, intimidating innnocent people, and blowing up electrical installations did nothing to disturb McGuinty's sleep! As I have said many times in posts on MLW, if native protestors had wanted to roar through McGuinty's back yard on their ATVs some night, I would have chipped in for the gas!